Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2003(4)JCR65(SC)]; JT2003(7)SC206; 2003(6)SCALE247; (2003)7SCC133; 2004(1)LC15(SC)
1. A letter written by the petitioner herein to the Chief Justice of India requesting this Court to issue necessary directions to the State to educate its citizen in the matter of fundamental duties so that a right balance may emerge between rights and duties, was treated as a writ petition. This Court appointed Shri K. Parasaran, Sr. Advocate as Amicus Curiae.2. As the petition raised a question as to the correctness of a decision of this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, : 1986CriLJ1736 requiring reconsideration, the matter was directed to be listed before a Constitution Bench by order dated 9th April, 2001. However, a Constitution Bench by order dated 21st November, 2001 recalled the orders dated 19th February, 2001 and 9th April, 2001 and directed the matter to be placed before a Bench of three Judges. The matter has been placed before this Bench pursuant thereto.3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Amicus Curiae brought to our notice the Report of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR104(SC); 2003(3)BLJR1877; [2003]116CompCas649(SC); 105(2003)DLT985(SC); JT2003(8)SC441; 2003(6)SCALE95; (2003)7SCC138; [2004]49SCL12(SC)
ORDER1. The appellant herein was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares and for that purpose he had been utilizing the services of the defendant, who is a broker at the Bombay Stock Exchange. The appellant herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,63,334/- against M/s. Mahendra R. Shah & Bros., who are the respondents herein. The respondents herein on receipt of the summons in the suit, filed an application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for staying the proceeding on the ground that there is a provision for arbitration as regards the dispute in the suit. The learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the contention of the respondents herein and directed the stay of proceedings of the suit. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the First Appeal from the said order, which was dismissed. It is against the said order of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)96CALLT720(SC); JT2003(9)SC535; 2003(6)SCALE250; (2003)7SCC146
ORDER1. A large tract of land situate in Village Badagaon, Puri was part of the estate of one Manindra Chandra Sinha. 2. On 24.8.1953, the Orissa State Legislature enacted an Act known as Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said Act came into force with effect from 24th August, 1953. Section 5 of the Act provided that all non-agricultural land shall vest in the State. Since the land undisputedly was non-agricultural land, the same vested in the State. It appears that after the death of Manindra Chandra Sinha, his sons executed certain leases. The Dy. Collector, Puri by an order 10.8.1957 revoked those leases. It may be mentioned that Manindra Chandra Sinha died in the year 1922 and by virtue of a Will, his sons, namely, Bimal Chandra Sinha, Aznreeh Chandra Sinha and Brundaban Chandra Sinha succeeded to the aforesaid estate upon obtaining a probate. All the sons of Manindra Chandra Sinha applied in 1959 for settlement of the said land in their favour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4195; 2003(4)AWC2856(SC); 2003CriLJ3750; 2003(89)ECC7; JT2003(6)SC330; 2003(6)SCALE45; (2003)7SCC427; 2003(2)LC1339(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by special leave against the judgment and order dated 12.1.1996 of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court by which the special appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 19.7.1995 of a learned Single Judge was dismissed and the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, was affirmed.2. The appellant is widow of late Jagannath Sharma. The Customs and Central Excise Authorities of Jaipur recovered 5 gold bars from Jagannath Sharma on 24.7.1969. On 8.4.1972 Police Authorities recovered 15 gold bars from Radha Ballabh and on 15.11.1972 two gold bars of foreign origin were recovered from Ram Parekh and both of them gave statements that they had bought the same from Jagannath Sharma. On 11.10.1973 police recovered 38 gold bars from the Ram Prasad Sharma and the documents showed that the same belonged to Jagannath Sharma. Jagannath Sharma was then detained under MISA on 8.10.1974, but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3566; 2003CriLJ3756; 2003(5)SCALE580
Sema, J. 1. Five accused -- Chuttia, Gulab, Vrindavan, Brijrani and Jagat Singh -- were tried in Sessions Trial No. 72/85 by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh and convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life for offences punishable Under Section 302/149 IPC. Further accused Nos. 1-4 were convicted Under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Accused No.5 was convicted Under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Accused Nos. 1-4 were also convicted Under Section 324 IPC and Sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Accused Nos 2, 3 and 5 were also convicted Under Sections 324/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court, by the impugned judgement, acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of all the charges leveled against them and convicted accused No. 3 - Vrindavan and accused No. 4 -- Brijrani for offences punishable Under Section 302/148 and 324 IPC and sentenced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4214; 2003(4)AWC2865(SC); III(2003)CPJ6(SC); 2003CriLJ3848; 105(2003)DLT954(SC); JT2003(6)SC345; 2003(6)SCALE52; (2003)11SCC318; (2003)3UPLBEC1994
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These petitions have been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against Smt. L.M. Vas, Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad. Ltd. Col. Nikhil Kumar is son of Maj. Gen. Baldev Kumar and he claims to have executed a power of attorney in favour of his father, who has filed the affidavit in support of the petition. The controversy raised in both the petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we will set out the facts of Contempt Petition No. 353 of 2001.2. The facts pleaded in the Contempt Petition are as follows. The Ghaziabad Development Authority issued an advertisement in June 1989 for sale of plots in Indrapuram Scheme. In was mentioned in the brochure that the possession of the plots will be given in the year 1991. The petitioner made complete payment of Rs. 508,851/- between 29.7.1989 and 3.12.1992 as per the payment schedule stipulated by the Authority, but the possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3701; JT2003(7)SC99; (2004)1MLJ23(SC); 2003(6)SCALE157; (2003)7SCC66
ORDER1. The question as to the interpretation of Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, (thereafter referred to as 'the Act') falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.07.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 28/01 in Election Petition No. 17/2001 whereby and whereunder the election petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.2. The last general election for Assam Assembly was held in May 2001. Abhayapuri South Legislative Assembly Constituency is a reserved constituency. The respondent herein filed his nomination for contesting election from the said constituency. On the date of scrutiny of nominations, an objection was made that the respondent was not a member of the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, his nomination was liable to be rejected. However, the Returning Officer overruled this objection. The respondent having received majority of valid votes in the election was declared a member of the Legislative Assembly from Ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)ALT(Cri)219; JT2003(7)SC126; 2003(5)SCALE671; (2003)9SCC468
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1993 of Karnataka High Court by which the appeal preferred by the accused-respondents was allowed and their conviction and sentence as recorded by the Sessions Judge, Raichur by the judgment and order dated 25.11.1991 were set aside. The learned Sessions Judge had convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and had sentenced them to imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused Amajappa (A-1), Kunte Yankappa (A-2) and Yankappa(A-3) are real brothers and accused Yamanurappa (A-4) is their sister's son. Two persons, namely, Eramma (D-1) and Hanamantappa (D-2) lost their lives in the incident. Eramma was married to A-1 and they were living in a hut in Sagar Camp. Some time before in incident, their relations soured and they started living separately in separate hunts. The first wife of Hanamantappa died and then he marr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4201; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)359; JT2003(6)SC339; (2003)IIILLJ751SC; 2003(5)SCALE675; (2003)11SCC607; (2003)3UPLBEC1997
Srikrishna, J.1. These review petitions have been filed by the State Bank of India which is the unsuccessful Appellant in Civil Appeal Nos 3337-3338 of 2002.2. The circumstances under which the present review petitions arise, briefly recounted, are as follows:-3. The Review Petitioner is a nationalised bank and Respondent No. 1, All Orissa State Bank Officers Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent association') is stated to be a registered unrecognised union representing less than 9 percent of the officers in the Orissa Circle, having membership of only 300 officers of the Petitioner bank in the Orissa circle as against the total number of about 2900 officers. The association filed a public interest litigation in the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack claiming parity with the office bearers of another union known as the State Bank of India Officers Association, which had been recognised by the management of the Petitioner bank for the purpose of collective bargaining.The main g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3617; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)506; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)293; 2003CriLJ3876; JT2003(6)SC348; RLW2003(4)SC484; 2003(6)SCALE34; (2003)7SCC643
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Since these two appeals are inter-linked and a common judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh is the subject matter of challenge, they are taken up together for disposal.2. Nearly two decades ago, Surjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') lost his life. Three appellants along with two others were stated to be responsible for his homicidal death.3. The litigious history starts from 4.2.1986 and has seen one round of litigation before his Court. By the impugned judgment, the three appellants have been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (for short the 'IPC'), and Section 201 IPC. They were each sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation of one year RI for the former and one and a half years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation of 3 months RI for the later.4. Allegations giving birth to the prosecution are es...
Tag this Judgment!